Urging students to vote

Civic participation has long been a goal of higher education in the U.S.A. Student governments, a variety of other student organizations, and political activity have all contributed to fulfilling this purpose. With the rise of populism and anti-intellectualism in the U.S.A., it's more important than ever for colleges and universities to actively urge students to register and to vote in elections. Many higher education institutions were very effective in getting the student vote out, which resulted in 66% of students voting in 2020, the broadest participation on record.

Leading up to 2020, the Institute for Democracy and Higher Education at Tufts University offered advice on how to encourage college-age students to continue to commit to voting. The rise in the 2018 proportion of college students was encouraging but continuing dedication to bringing them out in an ongoing commitment to promoting democracy is required. As the formal election day of November 3 arrived, educators turned to what must be done to restore civil discourse on campus regardless of the outcome.

Overcoming cynicism is one of the major obstacles in activating the youth vote, however, youth voters numbers were up in 2020 (increasing by at least 5%) and favored Biden by almost a 2:1 margin, with the most glaring exception being white male students. Encouraging faculty to talk about questions related to the 2020 election is particularly important to activity the youth vote. Tufts University's guide for faculty is a helpful resource. The deepest cynicism about higher education is found among citizens who have no experience in higher education, with 59% believing that "colleges and universities have a negative effect on our country's direction." This negative view, coupled with other pronouncements by Trump over the last four years, reinforces why urging students to vote is so important in 2020 and colleges and universities need to help students navigate the obstacles that sometimes discourage their vote.

One of the more difficulty issues to address while encouraging anyone to vote is the impact of demonstrations on voters' opinions. Omar Wasow of Princeton University has encountered considerable opposition for research he conducted on voter activation during the protests of the 1960s. He found that protests resulted in more conservative positions among some voters, a dynamic that is welcomed and being exploited by the Trump campaign of 2020. Richard Nixon won the 1968 election and the Brookings Institution advises that he won by following the same strategy Trump is presently using - painting demonstrations and protest as unAmerican behavior that requires a law and order response. The problem with Wasow's warning is that many believe that a polite response to police brutality is inexcusable; I say it can't be either/or but that an opposing strategy has to support legitimate protest AND push for voter activism to match any increase that may result from Trump's manipulation.

Competency based education in Singapore

 Nanyang Polytechnic University of Singapore has been working on a competency based curriculum that was accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking of recent progress, Jeanne Liew, principal and chief executive at Nanyang, said that the curriculum has been completely reconceptualized and is more relevant now than every. She said, "This pandemic has shown us that there may be disruptions that you don't expect, so we need a model that's very agile, very quick."

The COVID-19 reveals disregard for "non faculty"

A recent Atlantic article by Jeff Selingo identified a very important point related to the disparity in impact for university staff and faculty as a result of COVID-19 forced institutional changes. The point Selingo was making was that teaching faculty are more protected than "non faculty." The AAUP advocated that non-tenure track faculty (who make up 70% of teaching faculty) should be included in this privileged group. Selingo drew attention to staff who work in instructional technology who have expertise that is central to institutions' success in moving courses partially or entirely to virtual formats. Adjunct faculty have faced insecurity and poor salaries during the pandemic, which is ironic in the face of students seeing no difference between them and tenured or tenure-track faculty.

Introducing Selingo's article in Inside Higher Education, Joshua Kim noted that the dynamics institutions now face may result in reconsideration of the divide between faculty and non faculty. Kim wrote two later pieces, one that noted three trends of how staff have begun to be treated differently, and another suggesting that the flexibility and autonomy granted to faculty may also be warranted for academic staff.

The unfortunate part of both Selingo and Kim's critique is that the essential role of non faculty educators who serve in roles in students affairs was not mentioned. This same limited view was reflected in Marcus' essay on the "immense value of higher education community." Student affairs staff serve faithfully and tirelessly and are treated as incidental to faculty at most institutions; it's high time that the educational role they play is recognized and legitimized.

The very sad reality of the disregard for student affairs educators who occupy their particular segment of "non faculty" roles, was reflected in Shane Cadden's hypothetical post-mortem letter to an institution (like so many) that required him to inform them of "intent to return" in Fall 2020. The letter is satirical and revelatory regarding the fact that nothing was done to protect student affairs staff who were equally, and perhaps more lethally, exposed to COVID-19 in student interactions. Mary DeNiro, CEO of the Association of College and University Housing Officers, later called for staff in residence life positions to receive priority for COVID vaccinations.

Writing in a later Inside Higher Education article, Greta Anderson addressed the challenge of student affairs staff - not being in a position to have voice yet on the front lines of opening campuses to in-person instruction. Both ACPA and NASPA staff were interviewed by Anderson and it's gratifying that the important role of student affairs and the dilemma of having no institutional security was acknowledged.

Brilliant idea to reverse access to educational privilege

Eboo Patel, known for his inter-faith work, weighed in on how to reverse access to educational privilege - elite institutions (yes, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Penn, Dartmouth, Duke, Vanderbilt and more) should admit only students whose families make less than $100,000/year for the next decade. Unfortunately, advice such as Patel's is countered by others who advise "Climb or Die" in order for private institutions, especially those not yet branded as "elite," to survive.

Inequity in access is not only characteristic of elite private institutions but of selective publics as well, perhaps justifying the applicability of Patel's advice beyond the Ivy League. The proposal would not only benefit those students who have never had access to elite higher education before but would benefit the students who typically go to elite universities and never have the opportunity to actually see how the other 90% lives.

I believe Patel is accurate in saying that those students who have the supposed credentials and money to go to select universities will not suffer - they will still enter a work world that is based on networks of generational privilege. One difference that would come from reversing access is that suddenly students who have the capability to function in elite education would be afforded the opportunity to fulfill their potential. Another difference is that the new <$100,000/year students would transfer elite institutions and the knowledge the disseminate in very important ways.

Based on decades of research that indicates that how students engage in their learning is more important to educational outcomes than where they attend university, undistinguished universities would also suddenly be able to demonstrate that they actually provide a quality of education that is commensurate with what elite institutions claim. The playing field among young people and institutions would begin to level in ways that has never been seen anywhere in the world and what a difference it could make.

Botched policy for internationalization

Multiple publications (Inside Higher Education, Forbes and NPR are three) warned of the impacts of denying study visas to international students whose host institutions moved online in the face of COVID-19. The unwillingness of the Trump administration to formulate a national approach to controlling the spread of COVID-19 resulted in spikes in many areas of the USA, forcing more universities to move to partial or complete online instruction in the fall of 2020.

This ill-fated effort to pressure universities to open and to restrict international student options was abandoned when the judge at the initial hearing of the Harvard and MIT complaint announced that the government had withdrawn the July directive and returned to the March advice, allowing greater continuing flexibility for international students to take online courses. Educators viewed the status of new international students as ambiguous and 17 states and the District of Columbia joined in a lawsuit demanding clarity on whether they would be allowed to study online or not. The lack of definitive policy resulted in some institutions advising new international students to not begin their programs in the new academic year. ICE directed that new international students could not study 100% online although hybrid combinations of in-person and online courses were acceptable. Democratic lawmakers countered by sending a letter to the Department of Homeland Security recommending flexibility for new international students. Ultimately, international students were allowed to continue whatever form of study they were pursuing in March of 2020 through the end of spring 2021.

The perfect conundrum - a pandemic out of control as a result of no national coordination, universities scrambled to respond based on their unique circumstances, Trump declared that educational institutions must open for in-person instruction, and ICE restricted trade opportunity at a national level by declaring that international students must study in person. Some viewed the proposed restriction as non-sensical and poor  policy formation and others viewed it as simply a strong-arm effort to force institutions to go completely or substantially in-person, a path that neglected institutional uniqueness and the disparities in the spread of COVID-19 throughout the USA.

Restrictions placed on international students brought very real economic calamity for institutions and individuals as enrollment declined. It also had the potential to disrupt thousands of students' progress on their degrees, to undermine the contribution international students make to the diverse mix of USA institutions, to interrupt diplomatic relations, and to destroy future business opportunity of friendly partners throughout the world. Months after the initial flap over Trump administration mandates and subsequent reversals, Trump officials came back in September of 2020 with a new mandate that international students be granted only fixed-term visas and then be forced to apply for extensions if their degrees were not completed within 4 years. Again in October 20 the Depart of Homeland Security through ICE began a "round up" of international students that it believed were improperly granted OPT work visas after completing their degrees. The original efforts coupled with continuing restriction proposals gives international students in the USA a very clear governmental message - you don't belong here!

The Trump administration's new rules on eligibility and fees for H-1B visas as well as stipulations on salaries for faculty and researchers at universities are additional examples of botched policy. The policies, which were distributed without consultation, impact graduate students who wish to stay in the U.S. after completing advanced degrees and other faculty and researchers that provide critical intellectual resources to many colleges and universities. A consortium of colleges and universities sued the government over the new requirements and a federal judge struck down the Trump visa rules in December, 2020.

While the Trump administration disrupted USA international student enrollment, the United Kingdom was considering charter flights to make it easier for international students to access their academic programs and Hong Kong launched a major recruitment effort. By contrast, New Zealand's government decided to stop study visas for international students based on protecting the country from experiencing COVID-19 again after completely eliminating it. The uniqueness of the U.S.A. environment is that institutions have been interrupted and students thrown into a very uncertain future because of arbitrary and capricious action by the Trump administration - botched and shifting policy at every turn.

International students - time to examine motives

I've advocated in previous posts that the competition for international student enrollment has intensified. Now in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, every institution and country that has hosted international students and used them to supplement budget shortfalls resulting from declining government support and slipping demographics is scrambling.

With a 21% decline in international student visas and overall declining international enrollment in the U.S., the path forward will have to include reexamining why institutions and countries are interested in the first place - is it only the economic benefit or does it include the educational value that international students represent? The Council on Foreign Relations provided a podcast summarizing the rationale for "Why we need international students."

Institutions also need to consider the impact that COVID-19 had on international students and move quickly to help them. Issues include addressing the complications for international students who were stranded when the COVID-19 travel restrictions were imposed, the loss of part-time jobs and internships, payment of stipends to graduate students, and the dashing of plans for continued graduate school enrollment or OPT. The bottom line is the "need to create or expand networks of social support... in addition to offering free housing, meals and health care for students who are stuck."

Colleges and universities need to carefully examine how international students apply and gain admission. The unfortunate outcome of education being highly prized is that prospective international students can be exploited by schemes to help them gain admission to the most desirable institutions. Elite institutions have been embarrassed and some of the brokers are now paying the price for encouraging fraudulent applications, as confirmed in the federal prosecution of two providers in southern California.

Months after the flurry of concern related to Trump administration policy interventions and then the pandemic, some campuses seem to have doubled down to pursue prospective students. Two University of California system campus - Irving and Riverside - have been criticized for schemes designed to primarily attract wealthy Chinese students 

Black Lives Matter on campus

The rather strange confluence of COVID-19 closing campuses while the Black Lives Matter movement grew in prominence left higher education out of the headlines during the summer. Especially with many journalists noting the parallels that can be made in BLM protests to the civil rights protests of the 1950s and anti-war protests of the 1960s, not seeing protests on university campuses seemed odd.

Some educators prepared strategies and devised programs to respond to the Black Lives Matter movement ahead of students' return to campus. Based on the racial crisis at the University of Missouri in 2015, researchers indicate that a "Collective Trauma Recovery" approach is needed to respond to the emotional trauma that can occur when racial tensions arise. Others advocated a "Trauma-informed" approach to the mental health deterioration that Black students often experience. James M. Thomas warned in an interview about his book, Diversity Regimes: Why Talk is not Enough to Fix Racial Inequality at Universities (Rutgers University Press), that when students return to campus, "Colleges and universities should expect conflict, plain and simple. A not-insignificant number of our minority students will have actively participated in the protests themselves" and will likely seek to bring their concerns back with them.

While it did not conclude a cause and effect connection, a recent study found that HBCU enrollment increases correlated with reports of hate crimes. The findings reflect the hyperconsciousness of students of color to campus and surrounding climate. If there is evidence of hostility or fear associated with attending university, why would students not choose a campus that by its very definition is a more welcoming place? As enrollment figures emerged, HBCUs saw significant increases for fall of 2021.

An important element related to the BLM movement is the disadvantages faced by Black students before they begin their higher education. The way U.S.A. history was conceived and is portrayed in academic publications and courses is a pervasive complication once students begin their university coursework. John Thelen recommends facing past racist history by considering name changes for institutions and entities within them. Steve Mintz recommends serious examination, including recognition of many institutions' problematic histories, by evaluating if the perspectives being advanced are rational/liberal, multicultural, or a new and more radical view. Even disciplines such as music are now experiencing questions about scholars who demonstrated racist views in their work and college presidents' roles in desegregating or racializing higher education are being examined.

How a university's responds to faculty who display racist views is a very important signal that can either support or threaten marginalized students and faculty/staff. Faculty can help by anticipating more contentious classrooms, paving the way for more positive exchange. One of the most difficult issues will be the "fragility and inflexibility" of many of those within the hallowed halls of academe. From students who come with delicate sensibilities that are coddled or reinforced to professors who have hair-like triggers that send them off into entitled tirades of unexamined bias, colleges and universities have a responsibility to change their cultures as well as their content.

Positive signs emerged amid the continuing BLM crisis, such as college athletes raising their voices for social justice by threatening to "withhold their labors" and the faculty strike for racial justice, which advocated "brave spaces" to examine racial injustice. Eleven non-Black faculty (most from the University of Colorado in Boulder) issued a "Dear Professor" letter urging faculty to consider how they can incorporate anti-racism into their classrooms. The University of Virginia initiated a "place-based" faculty development program to address racial inequities, a Duke University law professor urged faculty to "Debias Yourself to Debias Your Teaching," and others proposed anti-racist practices to create more inclusive learning. A donor campaign kicked off at Howard University resulting in a $1 million gift that will hopefully increase to $5 million for a Center for Women, Gender, and Global Leadership.

Protestors are challenging names placed on campus buildings or monuments that reify confederate heroes and they are gradually being removed. An exception is at the University of Richmond where double-naming buildings was proposed, a move that Black students characterize as creating a false equivalency between prominent former advocates of slavery and the very slaves they oppressed. Even after their protests, Richmond maintained the posture of double-naming, resulting in a coalition of Black students and other supporters declaring that they will withdraw from participating in University organizations and administrative groups if the policy is not changed by March 25. After many months, the University of Richmond decided to remove the names that had caused so much harm in the past and present, but controversies continue on several other campuses.

The University of Richmond isn't alone in struggling with the presence and monuments to Confederate figures. As various controversies emerged, others advocate partnerships between racial justice advocates and inter-faith organizations as well as urge decision making that carefully considers students' needs. Strife over naming of campus buildings led many institutions to create new policies related to consideration of removal of names. Controversial names can be benefactors or notable people who trafficked in slave trade or owned slaves but in other cases, such as the University of the Pacific, a prominent journalist's name was removed from a building because he was sympathetic to racism. As demonstrated by the denial of the University of Dallas of a racial justice club, not all institutions are ready to explore questions related to Black students' comfort on campus.

Since students from minority backgrounds incur more debt and have a harder time paying off educational expenses and are presently experiencing greater mental health challenges, guidance on concrete steps that can be taken by faculty and administration to challenge systemic racism is welcome. While it's important to recognize that dismantling systems of marginalization and oppression is in everyone's interest and is everyone's responsibility, the essay by Aomawa Shields captured how becoming tenured helped her to find her voice in confronting racism. Access to a university education is important but it isn't the only concern. The accompanying problem is that success in the most selective fields with greatest return on investment have lower diversity representation.

Campuses are pushing deeper into racial healing, summarized in an AACU report and campuses/systems that require ethnic studies courses of all students may be on the rise. Land grant institutions are being urged to look at the "land grab" from native peoples that established their campuses. The Knight Commission has published recommendations for addressing racism in college sports. Publishers are beginning to provide direction to rectify institutionalized racism to authors that will correct decades of misinformation. The 1619 Project has raised both attention and ire (from the Trump administration) as a way to begin to portray a more accurate history of America's early days. Models of how to progressively demonstrate more commitment in resolving racial injustice offer helpful perspective and a real sense that this critical work can be accomplished, and it is critical that this social justice work be more than lipservice.

One of the challenges to moving forward with anti-racism work is the challenge from conservatives who view these actions as discriminating against them. The student who wore a "White Lives Matter" mask to his student government inauguration at Wichita State University is one kind of protest. Trump's mandate that diversity training in federal agencies cease fed this narrative and some campuses began to change or discontinue their diversity and inclusion programs, although the specifics of Trump's mandate is anything but clear. Trump officials later clarified that training "designed to inform workers, or foster discussion, about pre-conceptions, opinions, or stereotypes that people - regardless of their race or sex - may have regarding people who are different, which could influence a worker's conduct or speech and be perceived by others as offensive" was acceptable. However, when Princeton University's President restated a commitment to continuing its efforts to address systemic racism, the U.S. Department of Education responded that the statement was a "'serious, even shocking' admission, which 'compel[led] the Department to move with all appropriate speed" in their investigation of the University. Trump's mandate persisted even after President Biden rescinded it, leaving some institutions (Boise State) and states (Iowa) in a quandary about what to do.

Higher education has generally stood for freedom of thought and expression, which is core to most liberal arts/education models. However, not all students feel safe engaging with others about controversial topics, which may or may not be a result of the campus environment. Examples of conservative students targeting professors who they view as liberal have increased with the founding of Turning Point USA in 2012 by Charlie Kirk, the lead-off speaker for the 2020 Republic National Convention. Turning Point has done everything from forming the "Professor Watchlist" to advocating that donors cease to support "liberal" colleges. While claiming to keep expression open, Kirk's rhetoric, characteristic if staunch conservatives, emboldens those who seek to intimidate and harass scholars. An example is a professor at Washington & Lee in Virginia whose course gained national attention in conservative media, resulting in hostility and threats toward him.

Steven Mintz' review of Mathew Johnson's Undermining Racial Justice criticized senior administrators in elite liberal arts institutions for perpetuating racism through their actions. "...senior administrators had two overarching goals: To transform the campus into a true multiracial community, while doing nothing that might endanger the campus' elite status or undermine selectivity, merit, and qualifications in admissions. By portraying the university as a victim of a racist and inequitable society, which bore responsibility for the campus' racial disparities, and by creating a host of offices directed by Black staff members, the university's leadership sought to coop and channel pressure for radical change and prevent student activists from disrupting institutional priorities." Such a critique highlights the difficulty of striving for authentic change that goes beyond surface accommodations in racial justice work.

Unfortunately, reactions to protest can be very divisive as is the case when President Shapiro of Northwestern University berated demonstrators who reportedly had attempted to get the University's attention for weeks and then resorted to more violent means. Angered by Shapiro's response, organizers of the protest asserted, "Morty does not have the knowledge, tools, or desire to engage with our demands or to address the needs of Black students. He double down on his anti-Black email, refused to abolish NUPD or to engage with us directly." This specific example reflects what can happen when an institution may not have prepared nor taken seriously the angst that students, faculty, and staff feel around issues of racial injustice.

The BLM movement grew more intense when Jacob Blake was shot in the back seven times during an attempted arrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Armed militia entered the picture with a 17 year old using a rifle to kill two demonstrators, adding even greater weight to the original shooting of Blake. This unfolded during the four days of the Republican National Convention, resulting in President Trump and multiple speakers calling for "law and order." Van Jones, former Obama White House staffer, warned about the rhetoric being used by VP Pence and Trump and encouraged greater attention to the three dimensions of the crisis: 1) police brutality toward people of color, 2) high-jacking of peaceful protest by agitators, and 3) white supremacist vigilantes who are emboldened by talk of threats to the "American way of life."

The bottom line is that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work is ongoing work and reasons to hope that BLM will last should be lauded and advocated. Evidence indicates that campus diversity, inclusion, and social justice work has an impact, with college athletic teams being one of the most responsive settings. Building capacity and using crises to positively advance this work should be a commitment that higher education leaders make now instead of waiting for discord to emerge.